Three Waste Management Technologies May Be Alternatives
for Swine Industry

Three additional alternative methods of treating the waste from swine
farms have made what might be called the first cut toward being declared
"environmentally superior" to the method now used by most North Carolina
hog farms to treat waste.

Dr. Mike Williams, director of the Animal and Poultry Waste Management
Center at North Carolina State University, added three technologies to the
two that were determined last year to have met what Williams called
"environmental performance criteria" necessary to be considered
environmentally superior. Williams made his selections in an annual report
delivered to the North Carolina Attorney General's office Monday, July
25.

Williams directs an effort to identify swine waste management
technologies that are considered environmentally superior to the lagoon
and spray field system now used on almost all North Carolina hog farms.

None of the five technologies singled out thus far has been declared
environmentally superior. In order for that to happen, they must be judged
economically and operationally feasible. Williams said that won't happen
until later this year, when he releases a final report on the five-year,
$17.3 million effort.

The effort is funded by pork producers Smithfield Foods and Premium
Standard Farms under agreements the two companies reached with the North
Carolina Attorney General in 2000. Since then, experts from NC State
University and elsewhere have been evaluating alternative swine waste
management technologies.

While the Smithfield agreement spells out environmental criteria the
technologies must meet, it also stipulates the technologies must be
economically feasible. Williams said the economic feasibility analysis is
not complete, and until the economic work is finished, his determinations
should be considered conditional.

The three technologies that Williams determined meet environmental
standards all treat only the solid portion of the waste stream from a hog
farm. So if any of the three is to find its way to North Carolina farms,
it would have to be combined with a technology that treats the liquid part
of the waste stream.

Two of the technologies that meet environmental standards treat solid
waste by burning it, while the third is a composting system.

One of the two technologies that burn waste does so in a chamber called
a gasifier. Gasification involves burning a substance in a low-oxygen
environment, which converts complex organic compounds in the substance to
gases. It is possible to collect gases such as methane, carbon monoxide
and hydrogen and make ethanol.

The second burning technology goes by the acronym BEST, for Biomass
Energy Sustainable Technology, and includes two methods of separating the
solid and liquid portions of the waste stream. Solids are then burned in a
fluidized bed combustion system. In this system, the temperature is above
1,300 degrees.

Both combustion systems produce ash, which contains nutrients and has
value as a fertilizer.

The composting system was developed by Super Soil Systems USA. Waste is
mixed with bulking materials such as cotton gin residue and wood chips,
while a machine called a Compost-A-Matic is then used to mix the material
daily.

Another Super Soil Systems technology that separates solids from the
waste stream, then treats the remaining liquid waste in a series of large
metal tanks was given conditional approval last year. Thus far, this
technology is the only one that treats the liquid waste stream to receive
conditional approval.

In order to meet environmental standards, technologies must:·
eliminate the movement of animal waste to surface waters and groundwater
through direct discharge, seepage or runoff;· substantially eliminated
atmospheric emissions of ammonia;· substantially eliminate the
emission of odor that is detectable beyond the boundaries of the
farm;· substantially eliminate the release of disease-transmitting
vectors and airborne pathogens; and · substantially eliminate nutrient
and heavy metal contamination of soil and groundwater.

As did last year's report, this year's includes assessments of eight
technologies. Williams said that while five of the 16 technologies now
meet the environmental performance criteria, several others could with
relatively minor changes. He added that it may also be possible to combine
elements, or processes, from different technologies to produce systems
that will meet the environmentally superior standard.

Smithfield Foods is providing $15 million to evaluate technologies,
while the attorney general allocated $2.3 million from the Premium
Standard Farms agreement, for a total of $17.3 million.

In 2002 the attorney general entered a third agreement with Frontline
Farmers, an organization made up swine farmers. While Frontline Farmers is
not providing funding, the organization's membership agreed to work with
the attorney general and NC State University to develop and implement
environmentally superior technologies.

The technologies that have been evaluated were selected by Williams
working with panels made up of representatives from government, the swine
industry and environmental groups as well as economists and waste
management experts. In many cases, technologies have been evaluated on hog
farms at full scale.